IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW MONDAY, THE1T DAY OF SEPTEMBER201410TH BHADRA, 1936 RFA.No. 240 of 2003 ( ) ------------------------ OS. NO.23/2001 (PROBATE O.P.482/1996) OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM. ...... PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------ TRESA XAVIER, W/O.LATE XAVIER MANAYATH, AGED76 RESIDING AT MANAYATH HOUSE, HOUSE NO.26/2451, THEVARA, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. BY SRI.R.D.SHENOY, SENIOR ADVOCATE. ADVS. SRI.S.VINOD BHAT, SRI.SHIJU VARGHEESE. DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------- 1. MRS.MARY SIMON, WIFE OF LATE SIMON, AVITTAMPALLY HOUSE, HOUSE HOLD AFFAIRS, AGED ABOUT83 RESIDING AT AVITTAMPALLY HOUSE, PEELIYAD, PONELKARA, EDAPPALLY P.O., KANAYANNUR TALUK. (DIED) 2. MRS.IRENA ALOYSIUS ALIAS JESSY, WIFE OF JOSEPH ALOYSIUS, KADUMGAMPARAMBIL, HOUSE HOLD AFFAIRS, AGED46 RESIDING AT MANAYATH HOUSE, BUILDING BEARING AT PRESENT CC. NO.26/2451, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, KOCHI-13.
3. JOSE PRAKASH, SON OF JOSEPH ALOYSIUS, KADUMGAMPARAMBIL, STUDENT,AGED25YEARS, RESIDING AT MANAYATH HOUSE, BUILDING NO.CC. NO.26/2451, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, KOCHI-13.
4. PRIYAMAXI, D/O.JOSEPH ALOYSIUS, KADUMGAMPARAMBIL, STUDENT, AGED16YEARS, RESIDING AT MANAYATH HOUSE, BUILDING NO.26/2451, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, THEVARA DESOM, KANAYANNUR TALUK, KOCHI-13. (MINOR).
5. PREMA MAXI, DAUGHTER OF JOSEPH ALOYSIUS, KADUMGAMPARAMBIL, STUDENT,AGED15 RESIDING AT -DO- -DO-. RESPONDENTS4AND5ARE MINORS AND THEY ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR FATHER AND LEGAL GUARDIAN FATHER. RFA.No. 240 of 2003 6. JOSEPH ALOYSIUS KADUMGAMPARAMBIL, ASST. ENGINEER, K.S.E.B., (RETIRED), RESIDING IN BUILDING NO.26/2451, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, THEVARA DESOM, KANAYANNUR TALUK, KOCHI-13. ADDL.
7. JOSEPH FRANKLIN, S/O.LATE SIMON AVITTAMPALLY HOUSE, AGED ABOUT68 RESIDING AT TATA PIPE LINE ROAD, POWER HOUSE ROAD, NORTH END, KOCHI-18. ADDL.
8. THOMSON, S/O.LATE SIMON, AVITTAMPALLY,AGED ABOUT64 RESIDING AT AVITTAMPALLYHOUSE, EDAPPALLY P.O. ADDL.
9. MRS.CICILYCLEETUS, W/O.CLEETUS, KANNANKERIL HOUSE, AZHIKKAKAM, KUMBALANGHI, KOCHI-7. ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS7TO9IMPLEADED AS THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT AS PER
ORDERIN I.A. NO.198/98 DATED2802/1998. R2 TO R6 BY ADV. SMT.A.K.RANI. ADDL. R7 TO R9 BY ADVS. SMT.NIMMI FRANKLIN, SRI.N.SUBRAMANIAM, SRI.M.S.NARAYANAN, SMT.NIMMI FRANKLIN. THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON2305/2014, THE COURT ON0109/2014 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. RFA.No. 240 of 2003 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.A1 COPY OF THE COVER DATED NIL. EXT.A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF LATE M.T. ANTONY IN LAR.422/1988. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S.TO JUDGE rs. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JJ.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- RFA.No.240 of 2003 -------------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of September, 2014
JUDGMENTK.ABRAHAM MATHEW J.
This Regular First Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff, whose prayer to grant probate for the Will allegedly executed by her husband's brother was rejected by the District Court.
2. One Thomman had in his ownership certain properties. He died intestate. Xavier and Antony were his sons and Mary, the 1st defendant, his only daughter. In O.P. 1 of 1962 Xavier obtained a declaration that his brother Antony was of unsound mind and he got himself appointed Antony's guardian. Xavier died on 12.1.1979. Thereafter, by the order in O.P. 403 of 1980 filed by his wife, Tresa (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) the District Court appointed her guardian of Antony. The Court did not accept the contention of the 1st defendant Mary's nephew, Peter Thompson (Addl 8th defendant in this case) that his uncle Antony had no mental illness. In M.F.A.32 of 1982 filed by him the High Court set aside the order of the District Court and remanded the O.P. for fresh consideration. When the matter was under consideration of the District Court, the plaintiff in this case abandoned it by filing a statement that the O.P. was not pressed. She filed O.S.112 of 1984 for partition of the properties which belonged to her father in-law claiming allotment of = share to herself as the legal heir of her R.F.A.No.240 of 2003 2 husband, Xavier, and = share to his brother, Antony. The court found that each of the 3 children of Thomman was equally entitled to the property and they were allotted 1/3 share each by the preliminary decree. Before the preliminary decree was passed Antony executed Ext A10 Will on 3.4.1986. On 16.8.1994 he died. Two years later in 1996 the plaintiff filed O.P. 482 of 1996 for granting probate for the Will of Antony. Antony's sister, Mary, was the 1st defendant. She raised a contention that in view of her pleadings in O.P. 403 of 1980 that Antony was of unsound mind the plaintiff is estopped from contending that he had a disposing state of mind. She also raised a contention that the Will is not genuine and it is vitiated by undue influence, coercion and fraud. The O.P. was renumbered as O.S.23 of 2001. Pending the suit the 1st defendant died and her children were impleaded as additional defendants 7 to 9. Defendants 2 and 6 are the adopted daughter and her husband respectively of the plaintiff. Defendants 3 to 5 are their children. The plaintiff and defendants 2 to 5 are legatees under the Will. After the trial the learned Sub Judge held that the Will is not genuine and accordingly, he dismissed the suit. The judgment is challenged in this appeal by the plaintiff. She died and her children have been impleaded as additional appellants.
3. The learned Sub Judge has made the following observations about the mental condition of Antony. "So it means that the R.F.A.No.240 of 2003 3 petitioner wanted to create document to the effect that Antony was a lunatic.................The petitioner's husband has also created all necessary document to establish that Antony was a lunatic". (paragraph 11). But the last sentence in the very same paragraph is this: "It is also seen from Ext B18 and deposition of DW2 that Antony was a lunatic in the year 1980, i.e, on the date of notice". Again in paragraph 17 he has said: "So the deposition of Manuel Sequeira and Ext B19 show that Antony was suffering from mental disease". But we also see the following sentence in paragraph 19: "Suppressing the entire facts Tresa and Xavier tried to describe Antony as an insane person with certain ulterior motive". Thus there is not only no definite finding, but there are conflicting observations also in the judgment of the lower court about the soundness of mind of Antony, which is the pivotal question in the case.
4. Though the learned Sub Judge has discussed the evidence, he has not analysed it. The reasons for acting upon the evidence on various points are lacking in his judgment.
5. A judgment devoid of reasons betrays non application of mind by the judge. The litigant and the legal profession have a right to know how the judge reached his conclusions. This process of reasoning makes a good judgment. In Swaran Lata v. Harendra Kumar Banerji (AIR1969SC1167 the Supreme court has observed: R.F.A.No.240 of 2003 4 "........ a mere order deciding the matter in dispute not supported by reasons is no judgment at all. Recording of reasons is intended to ensure that the decision is not the result of whim or fancy, but of a judicial approach to the matter in contest: it is also intended to ensure adjudication of the matter according to law and the procedure established by law." Yet another decision of the Apex Court is Hindustan Times Ltd., v. Union of India (1998 (2) SCC242. "In our view the satisfaction which a reasoned judgment gives to the losing party or his lawyer is the test of a good judgment" , the Supreme Court has said.
6. There is a difference between a case in which the decision rests on questions of law only and a case in which it rests on questions of facts also. Where a case requires disposal on the basis of evidence, the judgment should contain the facts in the pleadings as well as in the evidence. But that is not sufficient because a statement of facts is not a judgment. Even discussion of evidence is not sufficient. There should be analysis of evidence. Each piece of evidence requires consideration and analysis. The reasons for believing or disbelieving a witness, for acting or not acting upon documents and the probative value of each item of evidence, oral and documentary, should be there in the judgment. In the process the court is required to apply law to the facts R.F.A.No.240 of 2003 5 ascertained at the trial. The reasons for the judicial determination is the soul of a judgment. Giving reasons is different from analysing or appreciating evidence. And lastly, there should be weighing of the evidence which has been accepted by the court on either side, the result of which will be the final verdict in the case.
7. The lower court was of the opinion that the plea of estoppel raised by the defendants required consideration. But the dismissal of the suit is solely based on the finding that the Will is not genuine, which in turn is the result of the lower court's observation that there is some suspicion about its execution.
8. The first point arising for consideration in this appeal is with regard to the plea of estoppel. As stated above, the specific allegation in O.P.403 of 1980 which the plaintiff had filed was that by reason of unsoundness of mind Antony was not capable of taking care of himself; on the other hand, the contention of the additional 8th defendant, who was the second respondent in the O.P., was that Antony had no mental illness. But this suit saw a reversal of their roles in as much as the former contends that Antony was of sound mind and the latter, as well as the other defendants, contends that he was mentally ill. Sri.R.D.Shenoy, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, submitted that it is a case of estoppel against estoppel.
9. Estoppel against estoppel is explained in The Law Relating to Estoppel by Representation (George Spencer Bower and R.F.A.No.240 of 2003 6 Sir Alexander Kingcome Turner, 3rd Edition published by Butter Worths (London) in 1977, page 154, para 155): " A good affirmative answer to a prima facie case of estoppel is established by proof that the representation relied upon as giving rise to the estoppel was founded upon, or the outcome of, a previous representation made by the representee to the representor. In any such case, the mine of the one party is exploded by the countermine of the other, and nothing remains as the subject of the decision, except the facts. The representee is estopped by his own representation from setting up that the representor is estopped by his. This is what is meant by the old formula that "estoppel against estoppel doth out the matter at large".
10. In Halsbury's Laws of England (paragraph 394, 3rd Edition, Volume 15, Page 211) it is stated that estoppel against estoppel sets the matter at large. This principle has been applied in India also as observed in Civa Rau Hanaji v. Jeevana Rai (1864 (2) MHCR31, Sarup Chand v. Musammat Pani (1917 (37) I.C.198), Jiwanlal v.Behari Lal (1918 (45) I.C.68 and Jethibai and others v. Chabildas Doongarsi and Others (AIR1935Sind 142). R.F.A.No.240 of 2003 7 11. The essential question which falls for consideration is whether the rule of estoppel is attracted. The plaintiff's husband, Xavier was appointed guardian of Antony in O.P.1 of 1962 on the basis of his allegation that Antony was of unsound mind and he was granted permission to dispose of certain properties belonging to Antony. In O.P.403 of 1980 filed by her the plaintiff alleged that Antony was mentally ill and he required a guardian. In his counter statement filed in O.P.403 of 1980 the additional 8th defendant contended that Antony was of sound mind. Do these statements operate as estoppel preventing the plaintiff from raising a contention in this suit that Antony was sound in mind and Ext.A10 Will allegedly executed by him is valid, and defendants 1 and 7 to 9 from asserting that Antony was of unsound mind and the Will is invalid.
12. In Chhaganlal Keshavlal Mehta Vs. Patel Narandas Haribhai (AIR1982SC121 the Supreme Court has considered the requirements to bring a case within the scope of estoppel as defined in Section 115 of Evidence Act. "(1) There must be a representation by a person or his authorised agent to another in any form, a declaration, act or omission; (2) the representation must have been of the existence of a fact and not of promises de futuro or intention which might or might not be enforceable in contract; (3) the representation must have been meant to be relied upon; (4) there must have been belief on the part of the other party in its truth; (5) there must have R.F.A.No.240 of 2003 8 been action on the faith of that declaration, act or omission, that is to say, the declaration, act or omission, must have actually caused another to act on the faith of it, and to alter his former position to his prejudice or detriment; (6) the misrepresentation or conduct or omission must have been the proximate cause of leading the other party to act to his prejudice; (7) the person claiming the benefit of an estoppel must show that he was not aware of the true state of things. If he was aware of the real state of affairs or had means of knowledge, there can be no estoppel; (8) only the person to whom representation was made or for whom it was designed can avail himself of it." 13. The defendants concerned have no case that they believed the allegation of Xavier or the plaintiff as true. The declaration of Xavier or the plaintiff did not cause them to act on the faith of it and alter their position. On the contrary, the definite case of the additional 8th defendant was that the allegation of the plaintiff was false. Neither the 1st defendant, nor additional defendants 7 to 9 claim to have been misled by the representation of the plaintiff. This takes the case out of the scope of the principle of estoppel. For the same reasons the conclusion cannot be different so far as the contention the additional 8thdefendant in this case had raised in O.P.403 of 1980. So the rule of estoppel is not applicable either to the plaintiffs or the defendants concerned.
14. Having found that the rule of estoppel is not applicable to the facts of the case, we shall examine the effect of the statements of Xavier in the proceedings in O.P. 1 of 1962, and of the plaintiff in R.F.A.No.240 of 2003 9 the previous proceedings before courts and elsewhere. Do they amount to admissions? If they do, what are their evidentiary value? 15. Sections 17 & 18 of the Evidence Act read thus:
17. Admission defined-An admission is a statement, (oral or documentary or contained in electronic form), which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and under the circumstances, hereinafter mentioned.
18. Admission by party to proceeding or his agent-Statements made by a party to the proceeding, or by an agent to any such party, whom the court regards, under the circumstances of the case, as expressly or impliedly authorized by him to make them, are admissions. by suitor in representative character-Statements made by parties to suits, suing or sued in a representative character, are not admissions, unless they were made while the party making them held that character. Statements made by- (1) party interested in subject-matter- persons who have any proprietary or pecuniary interest in the subject-matter of the proceeding, and who make the statement in their character of persons so interested, or (2) person from whom interest derived- persons from whom the parties to the suit have derived their interest in the subject-matter of the suit, are admissions, if they are made during the continuance of the interest of the persons making the statements.
16. In Section 18 'proceedings' refers to the proceedings in which the earlier statement, which is said to be an admission, is sought to be proved. It is not at all necessary that the earlier statement was made in a proceedings before a court or any authority. To qualify as an admission a statement need not be self harming; a self serving statement also may become an admission.
17. A combined reading of Sections 17 and 18 of the Evidence Act shows that a statement which suggests the inference as to a R.F.A.No.240 of 2003 10 fact in issue or a relevant fact is an admission 1) if the maker is a party to the proceedings 2) even though the maker is not a party to the proceedings, if he had proprietary or pecuniary interests in the subject matter of the proceedings and it was made in his character of the person so interested 3) eventhough the maker is not a party to the proceedings, if it is from him the parties to the proceedings have derived interest in the subject matter of the proceedings.
18. Ext B9 is a copy of the petition in English in O.P.1 of 1962 in which Xavier said that his brother, Antony was "not of sound mind for the last so many years and (was) not in a position to take care of himself". In I.A.1133 of 1968 filed in O.P.1 of 1962 also he repeated the same statement as seen from Ext B12.
19. Xavier is not alive and he is not a party to this suit and it takes his statements out of the first of the three categories mentioned in Section 18 of the Evidence Act.
20. As the subject-matter of O.P.1 of 1962 was only mental condition of Antony, there was no question of Xavier's having any proprietary or pecuniary interests in the subject-matter, which means that his statement is not covered by the second category.
21. In the present case the subject-matter is only the mental condition of Antony at the time of the execution of Ext A10 Will and R.F.A.No.240 of 2003 11 not the properties covered by it. This is not a case in which the parties derived their interests in the subject-matter from Xavier. So the statement of Xavier does not fall under the third category also.
22. This takes us to the conclusion that the statement made by Xavier in Original Petition 1 of 1962 is not an admission under Section 17 read with Section 18 of the Evidence Act. If Section 18 is not attracted, it admits of no doubt that Section 21 has no application, Sections 19 and 20 being irrelevant for the purpose of this case.
23. Coming to her statement in Ext B1 pleadings in O.P.No.403 of 1980, the plaintiff specifically alleged that Antony was of unsound mind, which was the basis of her claim for her appointment as his guardian. She told the court:"The respondent (Antony) is of unsound mind for the last several years and is not in a position to take her of himself and manage his affairs". In Ext B2 application filed by her before the Land Acquisition Officer, and Ext B3 reference application filed in LAC6of 1981 before the Land Acquisition Officer, and Ext B5 bond filed in O.P.No.403 of 1980, and Ext B13 deposition recorded in O.P.No.403 of 1980 and Ext B15 deposition given in O.S.No.321 of 1981 she declared that Antony was of unsound mind.
24. The soundness of mind of Antony is a fact in issue in this case. The statements referred to above of the plaintiff were with R.F.A.No.240 of 2003 12 regard to that issue. She is a party to this suit. These facts satisfy the requirements of Sections 17 and 18, and under Section 21 of the Evidence Act they are relevant.
25. As mentioned above, additional 8th defendant took a stand in O.P.No.403 of 1980 that Antony had no mental illness. If his statement also amounts to an admission, this is a case in which there is admission against admission. What are its legal consequences? 26. In Bhawarlal v. Mathura Prasad (1962 M.P.141) it was held that admission against admission is mutually destructive and they are only to be ignored. The learned Judge has observed: "In Kedar Nath v. Prahlad Rai, AIR1960SC213 their Lordships of the Supreme Court have further laid down that where each party made admissions detrimental to itself, the mutual admissions would cancel each other with the result that the question for consideration may have to be decided on the material on record irrespective of such alleged admissions. We are of opinion that the present one is a case of this type, where the conduct of the parties, as also the correspondence on record show the admissions made by the parties against their own interest. Therefore, the alleged admissions said to have been made by the first respondent in his notice, dated 4.1.1955 (Ex.P.5) would have no particular significance in view of the counter admission made by the appellant in his notice, dated 4.1.1955 (Ex.P.6). " But in Khedar Nath v. Prahlad (supra) the Supreme Court has not laid down that 'mutual admissions' would cancel each other. The question that came up for consideration before the Apex Court was with regard to pari delicto and not estoppel.
27. In Manraj v. Rameshwar (1969 Raj.L.W.507) R.F.A.No.240 of 2003 13 Rajasthan High Court held that the principle that estoppel against estoppel sets the matter at large is equally applicable to admission against admission also.
28. In Tulsiram Jagannath Saoji v.Maroti Doma Koshe and another(1980 Mah.L.J.205) the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court expressed the view that admission against admission cannot be ignored. The learned Judge said: ".......but in my opinion, the proper approach would be to weigh the admissions and not to cancel both the admissions. After assessing the evidentiary value of the admissions, made by each of the parties, the Court may accept one admission in preference to the other. However, it will not be possible to cancel both the admissions." This judgment was challenged before the Apex Court, which confirmed it (Maroti v. Tulsiram and another (1994) Supp.3 SCC746. But the Supreme Court did not consider or express its view how to consider admission against admission.
29. In none of the above three decisions the reason for taking the view is stated, the result of which is that they are of no assistance or significance.
30. There is a clear distinction between estoppel and admission."Estoppels differ from evidence in that estoppels are received as conclusive and preclude all enquiry into the merits of the title, while evidence is merely the medium of establishing facts which do exist or have existed." (U.S-The Carso, 53 F.2d 374 (C.C.A2 Cir.1931-See Corpus Juris Secondum P. 331 Vol.31 2008 Edn). R.F.A.No.240 of 2003 14 Estoppel creates an absolute bar. But admission is only a piece of evidence to prove a fact and it does not create bar and the party making the admission may always prove that it was erroneous or untrue or mistaken unless it operates as estoppel as provided under Section 31 of the Evidence Act.
31. As unlike estoppel admission is only an item of evidence which the court shall take into consideration in determining an issue, it cannot ignore admissions of either parties on the ground that there is admission against admission. As in the case of any other piece of evidence it has to decide which of the admissions should be acted upon. We find it very difficult to agree with the view expressed by the Rajasthan High Court in Manraj v. Rameshwar (AIR1969Raj.L.W.507). 32.Additional 8th defendant was not a party to this suit at the time of its institution. Later, he was impleaded in his capacity as a legal heir of the first defendant, who died pending the suit. His statement was not binding on the first defendant. If this case had been disposed of before her (the first defendant) death, his statement would have been irrelevant. Only her death has made its consideration necessary.
33. Admission of a plaintiff or a defendant is not an admission of the co-plaintiffs or co-defendants. (Chandy Avira v. Thomman Varkey 1951 KLT7(F.B) and Sitaram Motilal Kalal v. Santanu R.F.A.No.240 of 2003 15 Prasad Jaisankar Bhat AIR1966SC1697. But if the statement was made in his capacity as agent of the co-plaintiffs or co- defendants, it will be binding on them also. Taylor in his Law of Evidence has observed that an admission of one identified in interest with the maker is binding on the latter. (Section 740, page 473, Edition 12). The first defendant or additional defendants 7 and 9 did not identify themselves in interest with the additional 8th defendant. He made the statement in his individual capacity. It is not binding on the plaintiff or additional defendants 7 and 9. They cannot be deprived of their right to plead and prove that Antony was of unsound mind. So they can ignore his statement (Jethi Bai and others v. Chabil Das Doongarsi & others AIR1935Sind 142).
34. In the nature of this case the right of additional 8th defendant to object to the claim of the plaintiff cannot be split up and severed. At the same time additional defendants 7 and 9 are not bound by it and it is not legal for the court to hold that because of the admission of additional 8th defendant, the plea of additional defendants 7 and 9 should be thrown out.
35. It follows that even if the statement of additional 8th defendant is considered an admission, the court shall , de hors that admission, allow additional defendants 7 and 9 to plead and prove that Antony was of unsound mind. R.F.A.No.240 of 2003 16 36. Ext B14 deposition given by one Iype in O.P. No.403 of 1980 also was pressed into service in support of the contesting defendants' case that Antony was of unsound mind. Iype is not a party in that O.P. or this suit; nor was he a predecessor in interest of any of the parties in this suit. His statement is not covered by any of the three categories mentioned above and it does not amount to an admission. His deposition is irrelevant and inadmissible in evidence.
37. Ext B8 is a notice issued to Antony in O.P.1 of 1962. The notice was returned with the endorsement that as Antony was of unsound mind, notice could not be served on him. Apart from the endorsement of the process server, it contains a statement of a witness also to the same effect. The statement of neither the process server, nor the witness, which was only hearsay, is admissible to prove that Antony was of unsound mind, there being no difference between oral hearsay and written hearsay. Ext B8 also is irrelevant and inadmissible in evidence.
38. Ext B18 notice issued to Antony in O.P. 403 of 1980 also was relied on by the learned Sub Judge to hold that Antony was of unsound mind. The process server who attempted to serve notice on Antony was examined as DW2. Ext B18(a) is his endorsement, which is to the effect that as he had got information that Antony was of unsound mind, he served the notice on the plaintiff in this R.F.A.No.240 of 2003 17 case with whom Antony was residing. There cannot be any doubt that this also is only hearsay and inadmissible in evidence. The lower court went wrong in admitting Ext B18 in evidence.
39. An admission is a substantive piece of evidence. What is admitted by a party to be true must be presumed to be true. (Nathoo Lal v. Durga Prasad AIR1954SC355. It is the best evidence against him. (Union of India v. H.C.Goyal AIR1965SC364. But it is open to him to show that his admission was erroneous or untrue.(Nathu Lal's case supra and Delhi Transport Corporation v. Shyam Lal AIR2004SC4271. Sanity of a person is the presumption (R v. Mc Naughten (1843) 10 CI &F200(TAC). But admission shifts the burden of proof.
40. Now the question is whether the plaintiff has any case that her admission is untrue or erroneous. In her O.P.(Plaint) in English she has stated: "The deceased Antony was healthy and possessed normal intellectual faculties and was brought up by the petitioner with all affection, care and consideration of a son. He was capable of looking after himself and was assisting and helping the petitioner in looking after the properties particularly after the death of the petitioner's husband". "The deceased was capable of disposing of his properties and the Will was executed on his own free Will, uninfluenced by any one. He was absolutely normal on the date of execution of the Will and so continued till his death." 41. In the evidence also her definite case is that Antony had no mental illness. But she would say that he was always silent, for R.F.A.No.240 of 2003 18 which he was treated and he was cured of it. Her learned counsel asked her when he was cured of it. Her response was that he had no illness at the time of his death. This again prompted her learned counsel to ask how many years ago it was. She stated that it was 13 years ago. In her cross-examination she admitted that Antony developed mental imbalance after her marriage to Xavier. She pleaded ignorance of the proceedings in O.P.No.1 of 1962 filed by her husband. She avoided all inconvenient questions. Her deposition that it was Antony and not she who received the notice issued to him in the O.P. is false. Her evidence is stuffed with falsehood and studded with half-truth. Though it was not necessary to confront her with her admissions, she was confronted with them in her cross- examination. There was no proper explanation. In re-examination she admitted that Antony had mental illness, but immediately added that he was not insane.
42. Thus, neither in her pleadings, nor in her evidence the plaintiff has a case that her admission that Antony was of unsound mind is untrue or mistaken. Her attempt has been only to suppress the fact that he was of unsound mind. She has failed to explain her admission and it is binding on her.
43. Apart from the admission of the plaintiff, additional defendants 7 to 9 rely on medical evidence also to prove that Antony was of unsound mind. R.F.A.No.240 of 2003 19 44. Ext B17 copy of the bill issued from Kusumagiri Mental Health Centre, Kakkanad definitely proves that Antony was treated at that hospital.
45. In pursuance of the direction issued by the trial court in O.P403of 1980, DW4 Dr.Raja Raja Varma examined Antony and issued Ext.B21 certificate. His conclusion was that Antony was a chronic schizophrenic patient. He was examined as PW1 in the course of the enquiry in O.P403of 1980.
46. It is submitted that in M.F.A.321 of 1992 filed against the order in the above O.P this court refused to accept the certificate and testimony of DW4. The only observation made by this court in Ext.A1 judgment in M.F.A.321 of 1982 by which it remanded the matter is this: "The court may also cause the 2nd respondent (Antony) to be examined by a doctor and a fresh medical report may also be obtained". This observation apparently happened to be made because their Lordships were of the view that the plaintiff in this case (petitioner in the O.P) attempted to obtain an order by misleading the court. There is no finding that the testimony of DW4 or his Ext.B21 certificate was liable to be rejected. We think that independent of what is stated in Ext.A1 judgment, we can consider his evidence in this case.
47. Certified copy of the deposition given by DW4 Dr.Raja Raja Varma in O.P.403 of 1980 was marked as Ext.B22 in this case. R.F.A.No.240 of 2003 20 This document is inadmissible in evidence under any of the provisions of the Evidence Act and it cannot be looked into.
48. DW4 was a psychiatrist in District Hospital, Ernakulam. He had specialisation in psychiatry. Complying with the directions of the court, he admitted Antony as an inpatient to that hospital and kept him under observation from 17.12.1980 to 22.12.1980. As Ext.B21 certificate was admitted in evidence without any objection we will take notice of the facts mentioned in it though the correctness of the opinion recorded in it should be established otherwise. The doctor personally examined Antony and got a report from the clinical psychologist attached to the hospital. He recorded the opinion that Antony was suffering from chronic schizophrenia on the basis of the report of the clinical psychologist, the history of the previous psychiatric treatment and the following symptoms: poor rapport, irrelevant talk, inappropriate affect, paranoid delusions, auditory hallucinations, no organic features, no insight and no judgment. The opinion of the doctor was that the illness was incurable. We find nothing in his cross-examination not to accept his evidence and opinion. The suggestion in his cross-examination that Antony was cured of his illness by homeopathic treatment also assumes significance in this context. The evidence of DW4 proves that Antony was of unsound mind.
49. By Ext B9 Order in O.P.1 of 1962 filed by Xavier the R.F.A.No.240 of 2003 21 court appointed him guardian of Antony and his properties. Pursuant to it he filed Ext B10 bond. In I.A. 1133 of 1968 filed by him the court permitted him to sell certain properties of Antony. Ext B11 is his application for permission to deposit in bank certain amount in the name of Antony. In these documents Xavier stated that Antony was of unsound mind. Though this statement of Xavier does not amount to admission under Section 17 read with Section 18, there is no legal impediment for relying on these documents which are relevant under Section 11 of the Evidence Act. These facts make probable the case of the contesting defendants that Antony was of unsound mind.
50. The plaintiff and Antony were joint decree holders in L.A.R422of 1988. Antony and the plaintiff filed Cheque Application No.778 of 1993 in the execution proceedings in L.A.R. Antony filed Ext A6 petition to permit him to engage a counsel other than the counsel who was appearing for him earlier. The learned Sub Judge recorded sworn statement of Antony, a copy of which is Ext A8. She allowed the Cheque Application by Ext A9 order. In this order she has observed: "He (Antony) has further stated that he is not a person of unsound mind. On the appearance of CW2 (Antony) his evidence, his behaviour in court and Antony given by him queries put by court, I am satisfied that CW2 is not a person of unsound mind" (sic). It is not even known whether soundness of mind of R.F.A.No.240 of 2003 22 Antony was in dispute in that proceedings. Neither the 1st defendant, nor additional defendants 7 to 9 were parties to it. The observation or finding of the learned Sub Judge is irrelevant and is not an evidence to prove that Antony was of sound mind.
51. In M.F.A. 321 of 1982 Antony was brought before this court. The court made the following observations in paragraph 12 in its Ext.A1 judgment: "............ he answered questions put by the court and the counsel appearing on both sides, fairly/accurately. His manner of dressing and walking and his bearing and gestures were normal. He was clear in his voice, coherent in his speech and cogent in his reasoning. He knew about himself; he was aware of the outside world; he remembered important events in his life and stated that he has studied up to the B.A. Standard. He also remembered that he was treated and that he was maintained by his deceased brother." This is not a substitute for the proof that Antony was of sound mind. In Ext.A1 judgment it was further observed: "In this state of affairs we think it very unwise to uphold the decision of the lower court especially when there has been gross mis-carriage of justice by non- observance to the procedural requirements of the law." R.F.A.No.240 of 2003 23 This court took note of the fact that in O.P. 1 of 1962 the District Court did not enter a finding that Antony was of unsound mind and it was in spite of it the petitioner in it, Xavier, was appointed his guardian; but it did not enter a finding that Antony was of sound mind, but only remanded the matter for fresh consideration. So the observations of this Court in Ext.A1 judgment in M.F.A.321 of 1982 will not help the plaintiff prove that Antony had no mental illness.
52. In the light of the above discussion we hold that the admission of the plaintiff, the medical evidence adduced by additional defendants 7 to 9 and the probabilities in the case leave no room for any doubt that Antony was of unsound mind.
53. Learned Senior Counsel, Sri.R.D.Shenoy would submit that a Will executed during lucid interval is a valid Will. Section 59 of the Indian Succession Act declares that every person of sound mind may dispose of his property by Will. Explanation 3 to the Section says that a person who is ordinarily insane may make a Will during an interval in which he is of sound mind. The learned Senior Counsel has drawn our attention to the facts noted by the learned Sub Judge in Ext.A9 order passed on the cheque application filed in the execution proceedings in L.A.R.422 of 1988 and by this court in Ext A1 judgment in M.F.A321of 1982 (Vide paragraphs 45 and 46), in support of his argument that Antony had lucid intervals. Execution of Will during lucid interval is a matter to be pleaded and R.F.A.No.240 of 2003 24 proved. It is not sufficient to prove that the testator had lucid intervals. Proof that he executed the Will during the lucid interval is necessary. We are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the argument of the learned Senior Counsel since there is neither pleadings, nor evidence that Antony executed Ext.A10 Will during lucid interval.
54. As evidence has been recorded with regard to the genuineness of the Will, we shall examine it also. Though the first defendant has pleaded coercion, fraud and undue influence, no particulars of them have been given in the pleadings and no evidence has been adduced in support of it. So the point that requires consideration is genuineness of Ext A10 Will only.
55. Suspicious circumstances in the case of execution of Will may be with regard to mental condition of the testator, his free mind, genuineness of his signature and the nature of bequest. It is not sufficient for the propounder to prove that the testator has affixed his signature in the Will, but it is necessary for him to prove that the testator had understood its contents.
56. The Will in question, Ext A10, was not registered at the office of the Sub Registrar. It was deposited with him under Section 42 of the Registration Act. The plaintiff's version is that before his death Antony handed over to her the token he had received from the Sub Registrar's Office with the instruction that she should 'use R.F.A.No.240 of 2003 25 it' only after his death; she knew about the execution and deposit of the Will only after his death.
57. Ext A10 Will says that the plaintiff looked after Antony with motherly love and affection. All the properties of Antony have been bequeathed to the plaintiff, her daughter and grand children. There is a direction to pay the first defendant Rs.2,000/- within two years of the death of Antony.
58. The plaintiff (PW1) did not claim, or rather refused to admit to have any direct knowledge about the execution of the Will by Antony. The evidence of the scribe of the Will, PW3 Ammunni, has proved that the plaintiff as well as the second and the sixth defendants were present in his office on the date of the execution of the Will. On that day they executed Ext B20 sale deed in favour of DW3 Manuel Sequeira, who is said to be one of the two attesting witnesses. If the evidence of the plaintiff serves any purpose, it is only to hold that she has betrayed her eagerness to suppress her involvement in the execution of the Will.
59. When the plaintiff joined the family of her husband as his wife, Antony was a student. She and Antony lived in the same house for about 5 decades. We cannot believe that Antony would execute a Will without her knowledge and help especially if he wanted to bequeath all his properties to her, her daughter and grand children (defendants 2 to 5) to the exclusion of his only R.F.A.No.240 of 2003 26 sister, the first defendant. Her evidence that she knew about the Will only after his death is false.
60. The attempt of the plaintiff to suppress her involvement in the execution of the Will is a suspicious circumstance as rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel Sri.N.Subramanian appearing for the contesting respondents.
61. The scribe of Ext A10 Will, Ammunni, was examined as PW3. In answer to a leading question put in the examination-in- chief he stated that it was at the request of Antony he prepared the Will. The request was made one week before its execution at his office. After two days he handed over the draft, at his office on the date of its deposit with the office of the sub Registrar Antony signed the Will in the presence of PW2 George and DW3 Manuel Sequeira, he has deposed.
62. In his cross examination it was brought out that he had no acquaintance with Antony, the plaintiff or the 6th defendant. It cannot be believed that Antony would request him to prepare his Will if he wanted it to be done even without the knowledge of the plaintiff with whom he had lived almost half a century. Suppression of truth is evident in his testimony. This is another suspicious circumstance.
63. The first attesting witness Manuel Sequeira was examined as DW3. His memory failed him and he could not remember R.F.A.No.240 of 2003 27 anything about execution of Will by Antony.
64. DW3 Manuel Sequeira was a 'kudikidappukaran' in the property of Thomman, father of Antony and the first defendant, and Xavier, husband of the plaintiff. It is seen from Ext B20 that Antony joined the plaintiff and her adopted daughter, the second defendant in executing it. By this registered sale deed 3 cents was given to DW3 without any consideration in lieu of his 'kudikidappu' right and 7.200 cents and right of way for Rs.20,000/-. This sale deed and Ext A10 Will were executed on the same day. It is not probable that in the circumstances of the case Antony would prefer as an attesting witness his 'kudikidappukaran' with whom he and the plaintiff had disputes over shifting of the 'Kudikidappu'. This is yet another suspicious circumstance.
65. PW2 George is the second attesting witness in Ext A10 Will. He has deposed that he saw Antony executing the Will and that he and the other witness (DW3) attested Antony's signatures in his presence. According to him, it was Antony who gave instructions to prepare the Will. It came out in the evidence of PW3 that he handed over the draft of the Will to Antony one week before its execution, from which it follows that PW2 had no opportunity to hear Antony giving instructions to PW3. His evidence that it was Antony who gave instructions for preparation of the Will cannot be true. PW2 has stated that the Will was read over at the office of the scribe. R.F.A.No.240 of 2003 28 This is inconsistent with the evidence of PW3 that he did not read over the Will to anyone. In the circumstances of the case Antony would not have liked PW2 to know the contents of the Will. Apart from the fact that PW2 is a neighbour, there is no evidence to show that he had any close relationship with Antony. It is quite unbelievable that Antony sought his help for preparation of the Will as claimed by him. He is not a trustworthy witness.
66. To sum up, the admissions made by the appellant-plaintiff in the previous proceedings before courts and other authorities and the medical evidence and the probabilities in the case prove that Antony was of unsound mind. For this reason and the reason that there are several suspicious circumstances surrounding execution of the Will we hold that it is not a valid Will. In the result, this appeal fails, and accordingly it is dismissed. No costs. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, JUDGE cms